GPA comments by Phyllis

From: Dicksteinp

Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:27 AM
Subject: GPA
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org, planning@cupertino.org

Members of the Council and Planning Commission,

Please let me state how disappointed I was in the recent workshop and subsequent online survey concerning building heights and community benefits. In the first place, the topic selected really put the cart before the horse. How can you discuss, much less vote on building heights if you have not taken a final decision on the square footage of office space to be approved? It is not just a question of aesthetics, but rather what you intend to put in the buildings and how much traffic and other impacts will be generated thereby. The online survey on community benefits is biased, in that the introduction listed the positive aspects but not the drawbacks of a community benefits program -- mainly that it can easily become simply a mechanism to obtain building heights already rejected in the zoning amendments.
I am also disappointed with respect to the new procedures at Council meetings. Groups used to be given 10 minutes. How can you make a well-rounded presentation in 3 minutes? While proponents of various projects have at least half an hour to make their case, the community presentations can become disjointed and repetitive.
For these reasons, I would like to submit a statement which summarizes many of the concerns  I and other members of the community have expressed over the past year, as they are inter-related and should at some point be considered as a whole.
The first thing I would like to say is that you may have been moving in closed, or at least semi-closed circles -- unaware that the value you hold self-evident, namely intensive development, may not be shared by most of the constituents you represent.
Now, as we know (poli sci 101), most ordinary citizens do not get involved in political activity until they are aroused by a particular issue. Normally, folks rely on competing interest groups to keep things somewhat in balance. In Cupertino this sometimes happens, e.g., the dog park, but when it comes to development as an abstract concept, the developers have had the field to themselves. They have what ordinary citizens do not -- informal access. After a while, you may come to think the way they do, that what they want is really good for everyone. But suddenly, this community has awakened -- I myself was surprised.
So, to the philosophical issue -- does optimum development equate with maximum development? Is there ever a time when a community has reached a relatively good balance and does not need or want intensive growth? Whose interests does unlimited growth serve? To say that we need more offices to create jobs but then more housing for the new employees, is assuredly circular reasoning. Does the city require more revenue? We are not a destitute community. Furthermore,

housing, office parks, etc. require services, so we are speaking of a net revenue which may be significantly lower than promised. And, to spend on what? A civic center plan with a questionable price tag? I would suggest that any project that may be approved be tendered far and wide,  to ensure that costs are controlled.

No, what most residents seem to want is not overdevelopment, but quality of life -- less traffic, less overcrowding in the schools, less pressure on our fragile water supply, more of a green belt for clean air. We want to live in a suburb, not a city with high rises and urban density. It is different strokes for different folks, or folks at different stages of their lives. Young adults love downtown San Francisco; some people prefer the countryside. Most members of our government live in or near the Foothills. But, those who live on the East Side chose a suburb as well; many in fact live in private houses on the side streets off SCB, and may have lived there for years. Why change their community into something they do not want?

As it is, we face environmental pressures. The schools are overcrowded with classrooms in trailers, and the in lieu payments (in NY we called them "lulus") insufficient to build new classrooms. The roads are overcrowded even now:

-- At rush hour, it is impossible to make a left turn out of Cupertino Village onto Homestead; it is difficult to turn left out of Bandley onto SCB; both DeAnza and Wolfe are crawling, not to mention 85 and 280;

-- at 4pm negotiating the half-block of Mary Avenue between the senior center and SCB, requiring two left turns, can take several minutes;

-- even at noon, with Biltmore 2 not yet fully rented, exiting left onto Blaney Avenue can be a problem.

As for water, did you see the reservoir off Stevens Canyon Road this summer? It was nearly dry. Our city government urges us to take shorter showers and install low-flush facilities. Well, can you imagine how many bathrooms  4.7 million sq ft of office space would require? You may laugh, but California in general and Cupertino in particular does not have the water for unlimited growth  -- it is unsustainable.

So what do we want to see? I'll give you my vision, my neighbors may have others. Housing seems pretty much decided, but 989 units on Wolfe Road, and another 200 just off DeAnza, is hardly a fair division between East and West. However, all is not lost if aspects of Plan B can be brought into play and there is a real effort to find a developer for, say, the Summer Winds site -- to deflect some traffic away from SCB. The state should not mind substitutions if the required allocation is met.

Moreover, I would not oppose parcelization, even if dealing with multiple owners is sometimes a challenge. With housing, isn't this what brings in parcel taxes? Well-constructed buildings should not have to be razed after several decades.  Besides, condos, unlike rental properties, can have mandatory set asides for affordable housing, one of our mandates. As far as future housing goes, ABAG should be encouraged to pressure the cities less and Sacramento more -- to change restrictions on what cities can demand of developers (affordable units without concessions in return, greater compensation to school systems) as well as to reconsider our future housing allocations.

The net increase in office allocations ideally should not exceed the amount recommended by the Planning Commission and certainly should not be four times that figure. We could still allow for growth, but at a more reasonable level. Cupertino is already overbuilt, as several residents have noted in the past.

Now, Vallco.  It was designed as a 1.2 million sq ft. center.  Ideally, it should remain within that limit, given the intensive development nearby. The community clearly favors  retail and entertainment as the major uses of the property. Why should we lack department stores, the convenient Macy's that most of the residents value already closing,  just because other uses generate higher income? Cupertino has some excellent restaurants, but we are not big on entertainment. Most of it is in Vallco now. Do you really think young hipsters are going to flock to a city that is mainly office parks? Furthermore, as has been said before, retail traffic peaks at different times from office parks and housing complexes, which should ameliorate congestion somewhat. Then, if 1.2m sq ft  really cannot be filled, why not turn part of the 50 acres into a park? Not every sq ft of land has to bring in revenue; we need a green belt to mitigate the air pollution inherent in the development plans.

Yet, the site has now been purchased by a developer who envisions over 2.6  million sq ft of floor space, with a minimum devoted to retail/entertainment. There is a clear disconnect between his vision and the preferences of the neighborhood. How will the City Council resolve this?

In  conclusion, adding 989 housing units, plus hotels,  and a total of 4.7 million square feet of offices on Wolfe Road  between SCB and Homestead is a recipe for gridlock, especially when added to Main Street, Rose Bowl and more housing nearby on SCB. Please, do not even go there.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Dickstein

Travigne Villas